On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg < > whatsons...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I > would > > > > > allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to > be a > > > > > form of decision, learning, or reinforcement. > > > > > > OK, let's take Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, According to you, Kasparov's > > > > decision making was meaningful, while Deep Blue's was not. Yet, Deep > Blue > > > > won. Is this the kind of meaninglessness you are talking here? > > > > > Yes. Deep Blue didn't know the difference between winning or losing, > > > let alone care. > > > > The fact remains that good decision making can take place in a > > deterministic world. Some decision-making you will label as meaningful, > > some as meaningless. But good decision-making nevertheless. You cannot > win > > chess withouth making good decisions. > > I don't think Deep Blue makes any decisions or wins chess, I'm not sure what you don't see here. Deep Blue has several possible moves and chooses one of them (just as Kasparov does). It makes a decision each move. And given that it eventually gets to check-mate, Deep Blue wins chess. > it just > compares statistics and orders them according to an externally > provided criteria. It is a filing cabinet of possible chess games that > matches any particular supplied pattern to a designated outcome. We > are able to project our own ideas and expectations onto our experience > of Deep Blue, but that doesn't mean that there is any actual decision > making going on. There is no decision, only automatic recursive > reactions. > Deep Blue decides what piece to move and where to move it. That counts as a decision to me. A programmer could easily change Deep Blue to lose every match or to > command a robotic arm to smash it's CPUs. How can good decision making > be claimed if it can just as easily be programmed to make bad > decisions? Because Deep Blue wins chess? How else can you win chess except by making good decisions? Ultimately both Kasparov and Deep Blue make a move. Ricardo. > There is no symbol grounding. > Craig > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
